Title
Rosales vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-25882
Decision Date
Jul 28, 1969
Dispute over *pacto de retro* sale and land registration; appeals dismissed for procedural lapses but reinstated due to substantial compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25882)

Procedural History

The petition seeks to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals, which overturned the trial court's order disallowing the Escuderos’ appeals in Civil Case No. 5483 and Land Registration Case No. N-250. The Court of Appeals required the Escuderos to post an additional appeal bond of P120.00 and suspended the effectivity of relevant decrees until the appeal was resolved. The appellate court found no merit in the trial court's refusal.

Factual Background

The original civil case (Civil Case No. 5483) was filed on November 5, 1953, wherein the Rosales family sought to declare null and void a pacto de retro sale. The trial court ruled in favor of the Rosaleses on November 19, 1962. Concurrently, a land registration case (N-250) was instituted, which included the same parcels of land under dispute. The Escuderos contested the registration, claiming the redemption period of the pacto de retro sale had lapsed.

Appeals and Reactions

Following the unfavorable judgment, the Escuderos filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. They subsequently filed a notice of appeal on April 10, 1963, but the trial court later ruled that the appeals were filed out of time. The Escuderos petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and mandamus, leading to the issuance of a preliminary injunction against the Rosaleses regarding ownership of the properties involved.

Issues Raised

The primary issues on appeal were (1) whether the Escuderos sufficiently provided the Rosales family a copy of the appeal bond and (2) the adequacy of the bond deposited, which was only P60.00 instead of the required P120.00. The petitioners contended that the appeal bond's inadequacy and improper deposit invalidated the appeals.

Court of Appeals Findings

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Escuderos had properly served the Rosaleses, as the notice of appeal contained the bond information within the record on appeal, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Section 3, Rule 41 of the old Rules of Court. It emphasized that formalistic compliance should not unduly obstruct justice.

Analysis of Appeal Bond

Despite the petitioners’ argument regarding the bond's deposit with the Provincial Treasurer instead of the Clerk of Court, the Court held that the transaction was appropriate. The accepted payment by the Provincial Treasurer sufficed, given that he acts as an agent for the Clerk. Further

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.